Trusting the (un)trustworthy? A new conceptual approach to the ethics of social care robots
This academic paper examines the ethical acceptability of social care robots through the lens of trust. The authors propose a three-level model of trust analysis consisting of rational, motivational, and personal or intimate dimensions. They argue that while social care robots cannot engage in personal or intimate trust relationships, they are trustworthy at rational and thin motivational levels within a sociotechnical framework of teams of humans and robots.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, ethicists, and policymakers studying the ethical implications of artificial intelligence and robotics in healthcare and social care settings.
What the document contains
The paper addresses the ethical dimensions of introducing social care robots into care systems, focusing specifically on the concept of trust, trustworthiness, and relational dynamics between humans and artificial intelligence systems in caregiving environments.
The document does not provide binding legal regulations, technical specifications for robot manufacturing, or specific enforcement mechanisms.
- Evaluating the moral acceptability of social care robots requires analyzing whether they are trustworthy.
- Trust in care contexts can be categorized into three levels: rational, motivational, and personal or intimate.
- Social care robots are currently incapable of engaging in personal or intimate trust relationships due to a lack of genuine emotions, embodied knowledge, and internal mental capacities.
- Despite lacking personal trustworthiness, social care robots can be trustworthy at rational and thin motivational levels.
- A sociotechnical model of trust in teams of humans and robots allows for the ethical implementation of care robots when properly supervised and coordinated with human caregivers.
· 1 Introduction · 2 A new model for trust: the context of care · 3 Uncovering robot trustworthiness - 3.1 Rational trustworthiness - 3.2 Motivational trustworthiness - 3.3 Personal trustworthiness · 4 Normative and practical implications of trustworthy human-robot care relations - 4.1 Debunking misconceptions about trusting social care robots - 4.2 Sociotechnical trust: a new understanding of trust in robot care and its implications · 5 Conclusions
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
3/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
The robots do not seem able to provide the comprehensive care many people demand and deserve, at least they do not seem able to engage in humane, emotion-laden and significant care relationships.
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
2/5Protection of personal data and private life
The loss of privacy stems from the pervasiveness of certain technologies and their ability to collect sensitive information, not from their link to care
3 Uncovering robot trustworthiness
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
1/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
Poulsen A, Burmeister OK, Tien D (2018b) Care robot transparency isn’t enough for trust.
References
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
1/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
Finally, the responsibility gap is based on the fact that machine learning systems make decisions that are not previously programmed
3 Uncovering robot trustworthiness
screening score · 2026-10-24